buying in for the minimum in cash games

staringelf · 02-10-2005 7:07pm #1

there's an interesting and very well written post i stumbled upon at:
http://fullcontactpoker.com/poker-forums/viewtopic.php?t=30345
about short stack cash game play.

I'm not a cash game player player myself, i specialise in sng's exclusively so i wouldn't be as knowledgeable about the finer intricacies of cash game play, but i found it interesting reading nonetheless. might be of use to anyone who plays cash games...

basically the gist is that buying in for the minimum can be a very profitable strategy as it uses the notion of implied odds and how most players don't fully understand the concept. as such they play against a shortstack in a way that results in -EV for them in the long run. hard to explain in summary, you're better off reading it. it is quite long tho, but i thought it was well written and is food for thought on cash game strategy

hotspur · 02-10-2005 7:28pm

Interesting post, thanks for linking it. I think a further point to short stack cash play that goes beyond the EV issue is that it actually manufactures more successful postflop play in terms of strategy. This style of play - preflop raise then bump it big postflop - is good aggressive playing, which most players can't bring themselves to do when they have a bigger wad of money to lose in front of them. If you get tagged as this kind of player though you're in trouble, most players who know you play like this will rub their hands if you come to the table, and play higher quality hands against you knowing that an all in will probably occur from you. I certainly wouldn't recommend it as a way to go for learning players.

NickyOD · 02-10-2005 8:14pm

The only reason I think of that justifies buying in for the minimum is if your bankroll is not equipped for buying in for the max and you'd be playing underfunded. At the end of the dfay if you are a compitent cash player who plays within his means then buying in for the max is a far superior strategy. I do realise the concept of certain players playing too loose against short stacks in cash games because they ignore the EV implications just because it might be a small hit, but this works both ways. If you have someone well covered you can use your chips to bully him. If I tried this I'd just get coninuously pissed off that my nuts didn't get paid off as well as they should because I didn't bring enough to the table. IMO you should always sit down with the max and only at tables where you either have the most money or no more than 2 players have you covered.

Tackle · 02-10-2005 9:34pm

Spot on Nicky.

Some quotes from that article:

so, playing with deep stacks induces tough decisions and tricky play. it rewards the best player or players at the table, the ones who play well in these tough spots for big bets.

playing with a short stack decreases the "skill" per se (i hate using that word, since obviously even in a short stacked game, skilled players will win money from unskilled players). it reduces both the frequency and magnitude of tough decisions, so you no longer need to be the best player at the table to win the most money.

we want to get our money in as fast as possible while we believe we have an edge. if we can get it all-in preflop, fantastic. otherwise, we'd like to get it all-in on the flop."

I don't like this strategy one bit. How are you supposed to make serious cash like this? Maybe if you're a poor player and you want to try and steal a few measly pots it could be of use, but you won't make the big bucks playing this way. The author himself as good as says this strategy is for the poor players in the above quotes.

now, when you have a short stack, the implied odds are usually shattered. why? well, when you raise to $25 and you only have $75 remaining, the amount of money an opponent can expect to win from you when he gets lucky is severely limited. this means that when your opponents call your raise with speculative hands like low pairs and suited connectors, they are making a huge mistake.

this is because today's opposition just doesn't understand implied odds and how to adjust when your opponent only has 15 big blinds behind him. they still call big raises with low pairs and suited connectors and "creative" hands because they want to play fancy and loose and like the pros on television. this strategy exploits those tendencies very handsomely.

A good player knows this already and won't call a ss's raise with these types of hands. This strategy is only effective for poor players against other poor players.

Ste05 · 02-10-2005 10:13pm

Tackle wrote:

This strategy is only effective for poor players against other poor players.

I think this is a very good point, players with even mediocre knowledge won't play these holdings without any implied odds, i.e. me, and I'm no poker genius so I think that this is a very valid point..... and one that should be emphasised....

Culchie · 02-10-2005 10:27pm

Whilst I agree with you boys in the main.

In fairness the article is written regarding shortstack play, whereas you arguing that you should always sit down fully tanked up, and so in reality, never be shortstacked.

However for some (alot of) players, there is a limit to the bankroll, and yes they are under bankrolled if that happens, (maybe until the next pay day or whatever), and so if that it is the case then some of the advice on how to play under these circumstances is valid ... I believe.

Afterall, a bankroll by it's very nature has it's own limitations. This article is for those who are at the bottom extremes of their bankroll. If it were me, I'd say change down levels to suit your bankroll, but I've a feeling alot of cash players do not adjust accordingly.

I don't play cash, so I'm interested in your views.

For example in tournament play, you play alot differently with 50BB than you would with 6BB.

RoundTower · 03-10-2005 3:20pm

Tackle wrote:

A good player knows this already and won't call a ss's raise with these types of hands. This strategy is only effective for poor players against other poor players.

This is a very bad point. Buying in short is likely to help you against good players, not against bad players. Suppose you are the short stack with 15BB and you have a pair of queens. A early position player, not the best, with a big tank raises to 4BB, and two other good players with big stacks with 44 and 87s both call. You go all in. The early player calls. The other two players may now consider it is correct to call, because they can outplay the raiser postflop. However when they call they are forfeiting EV to you without any chance of being able to outplay you.

Against bad players in this situation, it might be better to have the big stack, especially if they are loose bad players. But most mediocre players like to overestimate their own chances of "outplaying them later".

Tackle · 03-10-2005 3:48pm

RoundTower wrote:

This is a very bad point. Buying in short is likely to help you against good players, not against bad players. Suppose you are the short stack with 15BB and you have a pair of queens. A early position player, not the best, with a big tank raises to 4BB, and two other good players with big stacks with 44 and 87s both call. You go all in. The early player calls. The other two players may now consider it is correct to call, because they can outplay the raiser postflop. However when they call they are forfeiting EV to you without any chance of being able to outplay you.

Against bad players in this situation, it might be better to have the big stack, especially if they are loose bad players. But most mediocre players like to overestimate their own chances of "outplaying them later".

As I said earlier - Maybe if you're a poor player and you want to try and steal a few measly pots it could be of use, but you won't make the big bucks playing this way.

And the above situation - when you're in LP and there are already callers to a raise - is one of the only times it's useful to have the shortstack (and -EV for the good players). If you have a good hand and are the initial raiser, the good players won't call you with suited connectors or low pairs, which is what the author of the article sells as the main objective of this strategy - "this means that when your opponents call your raise with speculative hands like low pairs and suited connectors, they are making a huge mistake".
They will if there are enough callers but that's unlikely given your stacksize. So, therefore it's the bad players who'll be paying you off most of the time.

RoundTower · 03-10-2005 4:18pm

It will work in any big-bet game where there are often multi-way raised pots. Lets say you raise in early position with QQ, and you are the only one with a small stack. It may still be correct for a good player to call you with 87s, if he expects other players to enter the pot behind you.

If the game is tight preflop, and most hands are heads up, you are correct in that you will have trouble getting a good player to go all in against your small stack with a "speculative" hand.

Tackle · 03-10-2005 4:41pm

If a shortstack raises in EP, I'm not calling him with drawing hands on the basis that maybe there'll be a few more callers (with bigstacks), when I know it's highly likely he's going all in on the flop no matter what. If I called right behind him with 6c7c and was lucky enough to have two more callers and the flop comes 4c10sJc. Well he's now all in with his overpair/overcards for an approx. pot sized bet and I have to hope someone else calls so it'll make my flush draw more than even EV. And that's the best case scenario.

I'll only call with those hands from LP in this situation with at least two other big stacks already in the pot, which doesn't happen often as they'll more than likely either fold/put him all in preflop.

NickyOD · 03-10-2005 5:52pm

.5/1 game yesterday I'm in the CO with AA. UTG makes a standard raise. I make a standard reraise and UTG calls. Flop is 557. UTG checks and I check behind. Turn is a 7. UTG bets 2/3 the pot. I call. River is a 2. UTG puts in half his chips and I move all in and he calls with AK. I win $147. If I was sitting down with 20BBs how pissed off would I be? Playing underfunded is just weak and stupid.

Hectorjelly · 03-10-2005 5:57pm

Ste05 wrote:

I think this is a very good point, players with even mediocre knowledge won't play these holdings without any implied odds, i.e. me, and I'm no poker genius so I think that this is a very valid point..... and one that should be emphasised....

This is completely wrong. This topic has been done to death - in short this isnt about buying in for $10 to a 50 1 game on VC, but for buying in for 2k into a $25 $50 no limit game with big stacks all trying to bust each other.

Ste05 · 03-10-2005 6:38pm

fair enough - but obviously my post related to the former and not the latter, as I don't plan on sitting down at a $25/$50 NL game short stacked any time soon,

I don't claim to have an opinion on the matter. I also doubt many of the posters here are either.......

My point also related solely to Tackle's post and not the article linked above, (which was a well written and insightful piece of poker theory IMHO)

I apologise if there was some confusion?????

Hectorjelly · 03-10-2005 6:54pm

im sorry if there was any confusion as well!

Tackle · 03-10-2005 9:14pm

Hectorjelly wrote:

This is completely wrong. This topic has been done to death - in short this isnt about buying in for $10 to a 50 1 game on VC, but for buying in for 2k into a $25 $50 no limit game with big stacks all trying to bust each other.

The article doesn't mention high stakes holdem, the author is talking about your standard online low-mid stakes cash games. I don't see why the same principles wouldn't apply though at that level though, surely the good players aren't going to call shortstack preflop raises with drawing hands, especially as it's much more likely to go to heads up.

aidankk · 03-10-2005 11:25pm

NickyOD wrote:

.5/1 game yesterday I'm in the CO with AA. UTG makes a standard raise. I make a standard reraise and UTG calls. Flop is 557. UTG checks and I check behind. Turn is a 7. UTG bets 2/3 the pot. I call. River is a 2. UTG puts in half his chips and I move all in and he calls with AK. I win $147. If I was sitting down with 20BBs how pissed off would I be? Playing underfunded is just weak and stupid.

altough i wouldnt agree with bringing in for 20 bbs, i always play at .5 - 1 NL tables with about 40, and this strategy works..

Players with full stacks will not have as much respect for smaller stacks, and as far as i can see, the value of the extra callers that can be got with a smaller stack, is bigger than the few times you will get a caller with the nuts and a full stack.

Bit of a sweeping statement "Playing underfunded is just weak and stupid", there is no doubt there is a better hourly rate playing .5 -1 with 40 than .25-50 with the same amount..

If 40 is 5% of the total bankroll, this is the way to go for me anyway, and i dont play weak or stupid..

One other thing it can put a table on tilt when a small stack comes in and builds up , and then starts to bully the table.. My approach is to play tight at the start to look for an opertunity , and increase the agression with time, and money..

Hectorjelly · 03-10-2005 11:35pm

aidankk wrote:

there is no doubt there is a better hourly rate playing .5 -1 with 40 than .25-50 with the same amount..

I think I might doubt that - not sure though Id have to think about it.

Tackle · 03-10-2005 11:37pm

aidankk wrote:

altough i wouldnt agree with bringing in for 20 bbs, i always play at .5 - 1 NL tables with about 40, and this strategy works..

Players with full stacks will not have as much respect for smaller stacks, and as far as i can see, the value of the extra callers that can be got with a smaller stack, is bigger than the few times you will get a caller with the nuts and a full stack.

Bit of a sweeping statement "Playing underfunded is just weak and stupid", there is no doubt there is a better hourly rate playing .5 -1 with 40 than .25-50 with the same amount..

If 40 is 5% of the total bankroll, this is the way to go for me anyway, and i dont play weak or stupid..

One other thing it can put a table on tilt when a small stack comes in and builds up , and then starts to bully the table.. My approach is to play tight at the start to look for an opertunity , and increase the agression with time, and money..

Do you not mind when you have the best hand against a big stack who's willing to go all in and you can only take $40 from him instead of the whole lot? Then there's the fact that as soon as you double up you're no longer a shortstack so it's kind of a once off trick unless you want to keep switching tables.

aidankk · 03-10-2005 11:40pm

Hectorjelly wrote:

I think I might doubt that - not sure though Id have to think about it.

Id say that TAble selection is vital, i do try to go into a table with as many low stacks as possible..

It does seem that there is little differance in quality between .25-50 and .5-1..

aidankk · 03-10-2005 11:45pm

Tackle wrote:

Do you not mind when you have the best hand against a big stack who's willing to go all in and you can only take $40 from him instead of the whole lot? Then there's the fact that as soon as you double up you're no longer a shortstack so it's kind of a once off trick unless you want to keep switching tables.

Dont mind at all, once im playing 5% of the bankroll, thats what im happy to win or loose on a hand..

If and when i double up, i will play more aggresive, and my approch will change.

Im just sure the earnings are faster and the game more enjoyable

Hectorjelly · 04-10-2005 12:32am

aidankk wrote:

Id say that TAble selection is vital, i do try to go into a table with as many low stacks as possible..

It does seem that there is little differance in quality between .25-50 and .5-1..

Thats funny, I look for big stacks. Just shows there are many ways to gut a fish.

Lafortezza · 04-10-2005 4:18am

Hectorjelly wrote:

Thats funny, I look for big stacks. Just shows there are many ways to gut a fish.

I'm playing Omaha lately and I always look for a table of big stacks. I guess the difference is that there's alot more multiway all-ins with drawing hands and you want to get full value.
You see quite a few people buying in for less than full stacks at the lower Omaha limits, they tend to get zero respect and for good reason.

Imposter · 04-10-2005 8:10am

I look for low stacks too. I especially try to avoid a table is there are 3 or more players (shorthanded table) with 80%-120% of the max buy-in.

What is it with tribeca that the max buy-in at .25/.5 is the same as the .5/1 game? It was funny last night the amount of people sitting at the ,25/.5 PLO game with less than 40.

buying in for the minimum in cash games

Comments